Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read. The description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the returned profile contents, including placements with their placement id and current stage. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or missing-candidate behavior, but those are less critical for a simple read operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The key purpose is front-loaded, and the description is compact despite enumerating many returned fields. The endpoint reference is somewhat redundant but not distracting, and the field list earns its place because there is no output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the profile fields and placement structure. It also highlights the placement id needed for recruitee_move_candidate_stage, which is important cross-tool context. ReadOnlyHint covers the safety profile, leaving no major gaps for a simple get-by-id tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The single candidate_id parameter is fully documented in the schema; the description does not add format, constraints, or alternative identifier details beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch one candidate's full profile by candidate_id. The singular 'one candidate' and 'full profile' distinguish it from list_candidates and search_candidates. It also enumerates the returned profile sections, making the tool's scope concrete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'Fetch one candidate's full profile,' but the description does not say when to choose this over list_candidates, search_candidates, or update_candidate. It usefully notes that the placement id is needed by recruitee_move_candidate_stage, which is downstream context rather than an explicit when-to-use rule.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.